Two campuses within the University of Wisconsin System announced Tuesday they are offering employees a voluntary retirement buyout with a one-time payout equal to 50% of an employee's annual base salary.

The buyouts at UW-Oshkosh and UW-Green Bay offer the same payout, but the eligibility requirements are different. At UW-Green Bay, the offer is being extended to all employees 55 and older who have at least five years of service. At UW-Oshkosh, employees must be at least 60 and have 25 years of service to the state to be eligible.

Tuesday's announcements bring to four the total number of campuses seeking to reduce their workforce through voluntary buyouts in the face of state budget cuts. UW-Eau Claire was the first campus to make the offer, followed last week by UW-Superior.(301)

While we strive for a lively and vigorous debate of the issues, we do not tolerate name calling, foul language or other inappropriate behavior. Please see our discussion guidelines and terms of use for more information.

While we do our best to moderate comments, we do not screen comments before they are posted. If you see a comment that violates our guidelines, please use the "Report Abuse" link to notify us of the issue.

The ACLU didn't do the study. They cite the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. Just the same, I don't think it's much of a reach to do the math. For that matter, the ACLU did not come up with the $1 billion in savings in California either, for which they cite "conservative estimates."

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that kids smoking dope is not a problem. It is. It's a public health problem, just like kids drinking alcohol, having unplanned pregnancies, or crashing their cars. Those transgressions aren't addressed with criminal charges or jail time, unless another law has been violated (DUI, statutory rape).

The question is whether running 9000 kids, caught with pot, through the justice system, is an effective way of treating the problem.

Certainly it *could*, but to what extent? With other states already moving ahead, there's opportunity to see what the effects of legalization efforts have been.

Has there really been a *significant* increase in teen use that isn't being addressed by existing efforts? Come to think of it, don't we need better anti-drug programs for youth anyway, which could get additional funding that is currently being spent on criminal prosecution and punishment?

For that matter, legalization of concealed carry could result in a lot more kids carrying guns. Has that happened?

Has CC led to a lot of people using handguns irresponsibly, or castle doctrine led to normal folks deciding it's suddenly cool to kill people? I don't think legalization really changes societal attitudes and norms.

Needless to say, marijuana sales to kids would still be prohibited. It's the enforcement strategy that's being debated.

Fred,I am actually kind of in the middle on this one. I do see the monetary argument on this one and if we could save money, I'm all for it. However, the talk that mariuana is just some harmless drug just doesn't ring true with me. I'm 47 and whenever I run into some old pot smoker from high school it just seems like they can barely speak in complete sentences. It's not an official study but when I walk away I wonder "Did smoking all that pot mess up his mind?".

vern I hear that; actually there is a NZ study that found IQ deficits in long-term smokers who started during adolescence. I'll post a link for you shortly.

I do think that a serious convo should be had about marijuana use patterns for smokers of different ages. In my experience, a lot of people start smoking marijuana in adolescence, and then "grow out of it," so to speak, in their 20s. I suspect that is rather common. Unfortunately, marijuana use can present serious threats to the developing teenage brain.

In all honesty, I'm kind of curious what the profile is of someone who starts smoking marijuana after reaching adulthood. While I'm sure marijuana is less than healthy for anyone -- especially when smoked, anyway -- it seems like most of the ruin-your-life type risks are minimized for people of age.

Here's a link to the abstract describing the essentials of the study, "Persistent cannabis users show neuropsychological decline from childhood to midlife."

http://bit.ly/12lmDPB

It's interesting because it followed about 1000 individuals from birth in 1972/73 to age 38, establishing marijuana use in interviews at five different age points. Neuropsychological tests were conducted on all of them, first at age 13 (before any use), and again at age 38. They also interviewed people that knew the test subjects regarding their functioning.

Their conclusion: "Persistent cannabis use was associated with neuropsychological decline broadly across domains of functioning.... Impairment was concentrated among adolescent-onset cannabis users, with more persistent use associated with greater decline.... Findings are suggestive of a neurotoxic effect of cannabis on the adolescent brain and highlight the importance of prevention and policy efforts targeting adolescents."

I thought the study was fascinating enough that I actually bought a copy, and I'd be happy to discuss it further.

The suggestion of adolescent vulnerability to marijuana does raise a lot of questions. Those that still remain are: does prohibition really improve the situation? What other strategies related to public health issues (such as those used against tobacco) might be more effective? Is it fair to penalize adults for marijuana use because of its suggested effect on kids, even though kids will always be barred from using pot?

We should look at another issue that goes to prosecutorial activism. We can't see through public records what is going on in our juvi systems across this country in terms of sentencing and focus of resources to close cases. Our children are not being protected by sealed access to juvi records they are being exploited by the lack of public awareness.

The criminal system gives prosecutors too much discretion to use their positions as activists paid for by tax dollars. They have few rules governing priorities. There is no reason why prelim hearings need to be called in almost all cases. Top experienced prosecutors do not need to be in court for intake and at sentencing. Their job is finished when the verdict or plea is entered. However prosecutors think their cases defines them and their career, they own it. Criminal cases belong to the people not to individual prosecutors.

Our kids are paying the price and have been for decades to keep the adult court a tool of political activism for prosecutors.

Stalin would be so proud of how we empowered the prosecutors to destroy lives over petty issues, deny due process and prosecute to give people felonies for political jaywalking.

At some point we need to recognize the failure that is our "war on drugs". Marijuana Prohibition is hardly been a deterrent to use. It has simply created a black market that has increased crime, funneled money to drug dealers and foreign cartels and filled up our prison system. Legalization will eliminate that black market, generate tax revenue, free up prison space for more "worthy" offenders and put major financial strain on drug cartels (I believe 60% of Mexican cartel money comes from marijuana sales).

Inevitably, marijuana will be legalized. It is just another example of our worthless Congress doing the wrong thing. There would be so many benefits if legalized : emptying our jails, a cash crop for both farmers & the government, a relaxant for people with or without medical problems, saving tax dollars on its enforcement. All this for a non-addicting drug.

The Republicans simply must learn to stand on the moral ground to practice the values to let parents run their families. Its time to man up on those campaign promises to repurpose our criminal justice system into a process that focuses on resolving crime.